SaysWho? Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 https://teddeutch.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399461 On Thursday, the first day of the 116th Congress, Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL), Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA), Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and Congressman John Katko (R-NY) introduced a bipartisan constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics and restore democratic power to the American people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 I applaud the goal, but it's not happening until the Democrats have 90% majorities in both houses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Trash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 I would love this, I'm glad they're trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Abolishing the Supreme Court is a better goal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 7 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said: Abolishing the Supreme Court is a better goal So...who steps in when an illegal bill is passed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said: I applaud the goal, but it's not happening until the Democrats have 90% majorities in both houses. Yeah and the state legislatures as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 10 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: So...who steps in when an illegal bill is passed? Define illegal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 3 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said: Define illegal How about a bill that criminalizes BDS actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Just now, SFLUFAN said: How about a bill that criminalizes BDS actions? BDS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 I wouldn’t be surprised if SCOTUS upheld a law like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Just now, Jason said: BDS? Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 19 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said: Define illegal A law that outlaws freedom of speech, or outlaws all guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 I'd be happy to see such an amendment pass, but if we're going to start passing constitutional amendments, there's a whole list of em that would be just as worthwhile. I just hope this gets some real press because I want people to become comfortable with the idea of changing the constitution. In our current political climate I expect that even if you found an amendment that had a 95% approval rating across the board, I still don't think it would get passed. Everything has to have winners and losers and the constitution has taken on an almost religious veneration, so many people would vote against it regardless of what it said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 We shouldn't be passing laws or amendments that further restrict or remove civil rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 19 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: We shouldn't be passing laws or amendments that further restrict or remove civil rights. Alien and sedition acts. Even the founders couldn't help themselves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 44 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: We shouldn't be passing laws or amendments that further restrict or remove civil rights. Yes we should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 6 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said: Yes we should. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 58 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: We shouldn't be passing laws or amendments that further restrict or remove civil rights. Corporations don’t get those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 24 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Why? Because it's demonstrable that loose interpretation of the first two amendments has created an epidemic of misinformation and violence in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 20 minutes ago, Anathema- said: Corporations don’t get those. Corporations having the rights of actual persons is the most insane work of legal fiction in this country. Individuals have rights corporations do not. It is high time that this be enshrined by law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 59 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said: Because it's demonstrable that loose interpretation of the first two amendments has created an epidemic of misinformation and violence in this country. I'm actually going to suggest that the interpretations haven't been loose, but rather have been all-too-accurate. This means that the entire original premises of the amendments are intrinsically flawed/unsalvageable to begin with. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 19 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: I'm actually going to suggest that the interpretations haven't been loose, but rather have been all-too-accurate. This means that the entire original premises of the amendments are inherently flawed/unsalvageable to begin with. you would Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 5 hours ago, SFLUFAN said: I'm actually going to suggest that the interpretations haven't been loose, but rather have been all-too-accurate. This means that the entire original premises of the amendments are intrinsically flawed/unsalvageable to begin with. No. This is simply not true, and to characterize this as such is irresponsible, and you know it. I'm all down for skeptical hate, but c'mon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 6 hours ago, mclumber1 said: Why? Is this a serious question? I'm asking honestly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said: Is this a serious question? I'm asking honestly. Yes. Citizens United decision confirmed that I have a right to speech, assembly, and petitioning the government. Civil rights are non-negotiable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 1 hour ago, mclumber1 said: Yes. Citizens United decision confirmed that I have a right to speech, assembly, and petitioning the government. Civil rights are non-negotiable. No it didn't; it confirmed that corporations are "people" which suggested even if you are a truck driver in the snow you should die for your company, which is ridiculous because having worked in mergers and acquisitions the last thing corporations are is people, reasonably speaking. This is a pretty understood reading of Citizen's United amongst legal scholars (not all scholars). I am fully willing to discuss the issue because it is complicated, so I don't mean to dismiss your opinion, but you seem to think this is more important to private citizens or small business vs. corporations, when it is pretty clear Citizen's United is meant to benefit corporations. Or do you think every other reasonable and intelligent poster has lost their minds on this one issue, given their responses in this thread? I'm actually surprised when reading the opinions on the case you believe that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 57 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said: No. This is simply not true, and to characterize this as such is irresponsible, and you know it. I'm all down for skeptical hate, but c'mon. Where is the irresponsibility in the notion that the Constitution was fatally flawed from the beginning, even if we start at the fundamental level that its authors simply failed to account for human nature? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 13 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: Where is the irresponsibility in the notion that the Constitution was fatally flawed from the beginning? No, I agree that all human made works must have inherent human flaws/errors, broadly speaking. But you seemed to imply with your previous post that the Constitution lends some reading of it that implies that corporations are "people" (the conclusion of Citizen's United) and that, to me at least, is an incorrect reading of the Constitution, not an "all-too-accurate" reading of it. This, as you suggest, implies that this means the entire original premises of the amendments are 'intrinsically flawed' as a result and that's not true based on any reading of the Constitution and an objective person would see that the Supreme Court was biased in its Citizen's United case opinion, not the Constitution and thus the Supreme Court may be flawed, but not per se the Constitution. Again, I am open to discussing the conclusions of Citizen's United, though I believe them to be clear. Plus, you can drum up Constitution hate all you like, but until a better alternative comes along, true belief in the meaning of the principles of America is a hard thing to ignore because it is effective, which is why you enjoy your skepticism. Because you expect better of what's in place. I am fully with you there. I mean, think about it - why do we bother unless there is some belief in the effectiveness in the basic foundation/premise we are working from? Heh. But you want it to work. Like we all do. S'all good bru. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said: No it didn't; it confirmed that corporations are "people" and even if you are a truck driver in the snow you should die for your company, which is ridiculous because having worked in mergers and acquisitions the last thing corporations are is people. This is a pretty understood reading of Citizen's United amongst legal scholars (not all scholars). I'm actually surprised when reading the opinions on the case you believe that. Citizens United confirmed that corporations (and other organizations, such as unions) have a first amendment right to political speech through spending money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Citizens United confirmed that corporations (and other organizations, such as unions) have a first amendment right to political speech through spending money. Yes, I agree. That is what it confirmed. And that reading is completely incorrect and wrongheaded (in my opinion). Their free speech right is based on the understanding that corporations are "people". I think the inherent opinion was misinformed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 Just now, Greatoneshere said: Yes, I agree. That is what it confirmed. And that reading is completely incorrect and wrongheaded (in my opinion). Their free speech right is based on the understanding that corporations are "people". I think the inherent opinion was misinformed. Do you think corporations and unions should be held to the same restrictions on political speech? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Do you think corporations and unions should be held to the same restrictions on political speech? I do not - given they are different forms/entities. My belief is to empower the weaker entity against the stronger. Not overpower but empower. Happy to elaborate and discuss as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 I don’t have any issue with the notion that businesses are people, as they are just a collection of people. I do take issue with the position that money = speech. That is the hottest of garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.